[ The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as  Madam  Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order]
	 — 
	Planning and Energy Bill

Consideration of a Lords amendment

Sadiq Khan: As they say in some places, a win is a win. In the all excitement, I lost my place in my short speech, so with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just begin again.
	I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who played such a huge part in helping the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), is here. However, I am also joined by other colleagues in the Chamber, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy), for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen), for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and, of course, for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), as well as many other right hon. and hon. Members. They include my good, dear friend the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey)—he is a friend, but not an hon. Friend, I hasten to add, unless he decides to cross the Floor, as his predecessor in Wantage did.
	I am pleased that we are able to discuss in detail the amendment from the other place, as I feared that the wrecking vote earlier would mean that we would not be able to do so. I do not intend to stray from the debate. Although I am a new boy in these Friday debates, I realise from sitting on the Benches as a Whip that you do not allow Ministers to depart too far from the strictures of debate on private Members' Bills, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on successfully negotiating his private Member's Bill through all the parliamentary hoops so far, including votes to sit in private. We are all aware that private Member's Bills can face an uphill struggle to survive. Given how far the Bill has travelled and the support that it has attracted during its passage, it would be extremely disappointing if it fell at the final hurdle.

Sadiq Khan: One reason why we ought to be so conciliatory is the approach and tenor taken by Opposition Front Benchers and, more importantly, the personality of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who has managed to bring us together. One hopes that he can play a role in other areas of legislation, where greater working together may lead to greater fruits for the country.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman will not draw me into that debate. I shall not comment, except to point out that I have never been persuaded of the case for a local income tax. Taxes are too high and should not be increased. The consequence of a local income tax would be that everybody would pay much more income tax and have less money to spend on their own priorities.
	To answer the hon. Member for Teignbridge, it is not as though there is no cost associated with the concession for the over-75s: the taxpayer pays £520 million a year for it. It is presented as an act of generosity by the Government, but if the Government have £520 million to spend on the over-75s, they should give them the money in their pocket, so that they can spend it as they wish, rather than handing it as a proxy payment, made on their behalf, that goes toward the funding of the BBC. The redirection of that taxpayers' money—£520 million—would be another side benefit of the enactment of the Bill.
	The March 2006 White Paper, "A public service for all: the BBC in the digital age" contained a justification for the BBC licence fee, stating:
	"Consultation and research...has demonstrated support for the licence fee to continue as the 'least worst' way of funding the BBC."
	That is hardly a ringing endorsement.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow such a self-proclaimed good friend of the BBC. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has the best interests of the BBC at heart, as he said. The centrepiece of his speech was his reference to the licence fee as a tax on every household in the land, irrespective of ability to pay. I intend to try to deal with that issue. It is worth reflecting, as the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, that he has form on the issue of taxes. He told the House, at 4.34 am in March 1990, that
	"Of all the alternatives to the domestic rates, the community charge is by far the fairest system."—[ Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 400.]
	I am glad that, over the years, he has moved on in his thinking about the impact of those charges on the poor. The issue has to be confronted; obviously, the licence fee is a flat charge, although there are numerous concessions, both for the over-75s, as has been mentioned, and for others.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to those who argue that the licence fee is the least worst system for funding the BBC. Winston Churchill said the same about democracy—that it was the least worst system of government. There is sometimes something to be said for the least worst system, and that is what I intend to concentrate my remarks on.
	The hon. Gentleman has form on this issue: he introduced a ten-minute Bill to abolish the BBC licence fee just eight years ago. On that occasion, he quoted approvingly the  Daily Star, which had said that
	"BBC programmes are about as exciting as old wallpaper paste".
	I was waiting for him to give us examples of things that the BBC does well, but apart from the World Service I do not think that he referred to one thing that he treasured in the BBC.
	I was looking at the things that the BBC has done since 2000, thinking that perhaps one of them might have tempted the hon. Gentleman to change his attitude to the licence fee—for example, Freeview, which is perhaps Greg Dyke's greatest legacy to the nation. It brings digital TV to millions of people and is now the digital platform of choice. Perhaps freesat, a great collaborative venture between ITV and the BBC, or the iPlayer, which he mentioned, might have modified his attitude, or some of the great programmes that the BBC has produced since 2000. Programmes such as "Planet Earth" have been viewed by millions of viewers. The old argument that there was a golden age of the BBC that we have lost is deeply flawed. Programmes such as "Planet Earth" are watched by far more people than ever watched "Civilisation" in the 1970s, because of the expansion of education and BBC output.
	I thought that perhaps some of the comedy might have tempted the hon. Gentleman to change his mind, albeit perhaps not the comedy on BBC3; it might not be to the hon. Gentleman's taste, even though the channel is increasing its reach. However, some of the great comedy on BBC2 might have appealed to him, such as "The Office". Perhaps, dare I say it, "Grumpy Old Men" might have tempted him to modify his position on the BBC. However, none of those programmes did.

John Grogan: I am a great supporter of our post offices. One of the reasons I am on the Back Benches rather than on the Front Bench is that I have tended to vote that way when the opportunity has arisen in the House on motions on the Post Office. I share the vigour of the hon. Gentleman's defence of post offices. It is a pity that the BBC licence fee cannot be paid at a post office, though it can be paid through PayPoint.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the change in technology and posed the question whether the licence fee was undermined by the fact that content can now be downloaded from the iPlayer after the event or accessed by other means. He cited the arguments put by Greg Dyke. Ninety per cent. of households still have televisions, the overwhelming majority of which pay the licence fee. If one accesses BBC content live, whether through television or computer, one is liable to pay the licence fee.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned BBC Resistance, a group that I had not heard of before and which he seemed to mention with approval. I do not detect a widespread movement of resistance to paying the licence fee, although it is right that the BBC Trust is investigating other methods of collecting the fee and reviewing whether all the ways of pursuing people to ensure that they pay are appropriate. We all look forward to the BBC Trust's report in due course.

John Grogan: The hon. Gentleman has cited Michael Grade; it is a complete misrepresentation of his position to say that he wants public funding for ITV. I shall come to suggestions about how we can preserve more of our public service broadcasting, but the last thing Michael Grade wants is the licence fee. He made that perfectly clear in his remark at the breakfast.
	Today's debate is important. I like to consider how the different Front-Bench and Back-Bench members of the modern-day Conservative party view Polly Toynbee. How do they react when they see an article by her in the Tea Room? I am sure that some read her avidly and are interested in the view of  The Guardian on a whole range of issues, but I suspect that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is not one of them. It is interesting that only last week Polly Toynbee—one of the great advocates of the BBC—wrote in  The Guardian:
	"The BBC stands as the only truly admired emblem of Britain; trusted, envied and valued, a gift to the rest of the world."

John Grogan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall follow your ruling to the letter.
	We are having this debate at a timely moment. Over its 80-year history, the BBC has been too centred on London. This week has been dramatic, with lots happening in the world economy and so on. The House may have missed a speech by Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, who announced much more ambitious targets for moving BBC production out of London to the nations and regions. By 2016, a third of all BBC production will come from the English regions, up from 26 per cent. now. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will account for 17 per cent. of the production of all BBC programmes by that stage—nearly a tripling of their output. As Jana Bennett said,
	"there is no substitute for being there."
	It has taken the BBC a long while to learn that lesson. It will be simply fantastic when Manchester can boast BBC Radio 5 Live, 5 Live Extra and the two children's channels. A lot of BBC commissioning has gone to Manchester through BBC Learning as well. In answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Christchurch about what more the BBC can do to assist other public service broadcasters, I should say that the sharing of facilities is one of them. The BBC management have suggested that they could share some of their local and regional news output and some of their research and development with the commercial sector; they have already co-operated with ITV on issues such as Freesat.
	In the coming months, it will be interesting to see how BBC management can monetise that sharing of resources, how they can be more specific and what suggestions they make to Ofcom and the Government about how they can do that. In the meantime, there will be a revolution for viewers and listeners in the voice of the BBC and where the programmes come from.
	The Welsh newspapers were saying a couple of days ago that Auntie is becoming Welsh. "Crimewatch" is moving to Wales, as, possibly, is "Casualty". I think that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that move because, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, there is a danger that ITV's regional heritage and tradition is weakening, which means that there is even more merit in the BBC becoming stronger in the regions.
	Sport on the BBC is one of the joys of the nation. It tremendous to be able to watch great sporting events without the interruption of adverts. The BBC was the only major public service broadcaster in the world to stay after the Olympics to cover the Paralympics. During the Olympics and the Paralympics, it delivered the red button service—a product of Freeview, Freesat and technology that the BBC has developed over the years. That was a tremendous bonus for a sports fan. I am glad that the Government are reviewing the list of sporting events that must be made available to free-to-air broadcasters at a reasonable price. It would be nice to see added to that the Ashes series, the last day of the Ryder cup and the home nations' qualification matches for the World cup and European championships. The BBC is still the world's biggest terrestrial broadcaster in terms of sport. Ten per cent. of the output of BBC1 and BBC2 is devoted to sport. It enriches the lives of many people who could not afford to pay subscriptions for Sky TV and Setanta. Our national life would be much diminished without BBC Sport's contribution to it.
	The BBC licence fee still has a lot of life in it. It is the least worst system of supporting a BBC that still reaches 93 per cent. of people in the nation every week. Eighty-four per cent. of people—a figure that is slightly up on last year—watch one or other of the BBC TV channels each year. More than 50 per cent. of our radio listening is done via the BBC. Our local radio stations enrich communities across the length and breadth of our land. Above all, the BBC produces programmes of such quality that they are the envy of the world. They inform, educate and entertain. Because of the BBC, people switch on their radios or television sets, things catch their eye or make them prick up their ears, and they become interested in things that they would never believe they could be interested in. It is still true that, in the words of Dennis Potter, one can tune in, switch on and marvel. It gives me great pleasure to oppose this Bill and to support the BBC licence fee.

Edward Vaizey: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who has been a vocal supporter of the BBC during his 11 years in this House. It is rumoured that his time here may be coming to an end, but I am sure that he will re-emerge outside in some form or other as a continued supporter of the BBC.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on using his opportunity in the ballot for private Members' Bills to promote this Bill. It is important to make two points at the outset. First, as my hon. Friend said, to propose the abolition of the licence fee—or, to put it more kindly, to propose an alternative way of funding the BBC—is not to launch an attack on the BBC. One can be a friend of the BBC and still suggest that it might be alternatively funded. Secondly, no one in this House, whatever their views of their BBC or the licence fee, should be afraid to debate whether the licence fee is the best way of funding the organisation. Since I entered politics, I have found that it is always extremely dangerous to muse, debate or think outside the box. I want to put it on record that I am a firm supporter of the licence fee, as is the Conservative party. Nevertheless, no one should be afraid to rehearse the arguments about whether the licence fee is the best funding mechanism.
	Having been tutored by you on many occasions, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important to emphasise that this is essentially a debate about the mechanism for funding the BBC, although it wandered slightly, but effectively, during the remarks of my hon. Friend and those of the hon. Member for Selby, on to other aspects of public service broadcasting and the merits of the BBC.
	Let me focus on some of the proposed alternative methods of funding the BBC. I say to my hon. Friend—in all humility because he is an extremely experienced parliamentarian and former Minister—that his arguments against the licence fee might have been strengthened if he had put forward a clear and cogent alternative. I echo the hon. Member for Selby in saying that although the licence fee has some imperfections, it is probably the least worst mechanism for funding the BBC.
	I must confess that I was horrified to hear my hon. Friend propose what amounted to an arts council of the airwaves. Knowing as much as I do about his firm principles and views, I was appalled by the idea of setting up a terrible quango of the great and the good to distribute public money to make programmes that, if I could put it this way, people like us would like to watch. I can confidently predict that were he to get his way and have that arts council established, he would be back in this Chamber within a year or two proposing its immediate abolition having seen some of its output. To be fair to Ofcom, which has been criticised for proposing an arts council of the airwaves, that is no longer being seriously considered as an option. What is being seriously considered, however, is the idea of top-slicing, which in effect shares the BBC's licence fee with some of the other main public service broadcasters.
	On the other proposed alternative arrangements for funding the BBC, first, there is the obvious method of subscription. Intellectually speaking, particularly in a digital age, there might be no problem with a subscription service. However, the trouble would be that it would immediately narrow the BBC's audience base. It would also betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the BBC's purpose in terms of its role as a public service broadcaster and its place in the ecology of public service broadcasting and broadcasting as a whole, because its audience would be segmented and severely diminished.
	Similarly, some public service broadcasters are supported by advertising—Channel 4 is the most obvious example, but that also applies to ITV and Channel 5, if we want to include them in the family of public service broadcasters. Indeed, to some extent, the BBC plays fast and loose with advertising. For example, there is advertising on BBC Worldwide, and the BBC adopts forms of sponsorship, which, in my book, come close to advertising. However, in the current climate, the idea of the BBC suddenly entering the marketplace to compete for advertising is unrealistic. Again, the BBC's ecology and the public's wishes favour a BBC that is free from advertising and directly funded. That is the way forward.

Edward Vaizey: Indeed—I win the bingo prize for mentioning "Blue Planet". However, the BBC as a public service broadcaster is much more than "Blue Planet". The BBC, like all publicly funded organisations, is always desperate to prove its economic worth, so it publishes worthy papers—probably wasting licence fee payers' money in the process—to show that it contributes more to the economy than it takes from it. The latest report—from Coopers & Lybrand, or some other such auditor that probably failed to audit a commercial bank—pointed out that, for the £3.5 billion we give the BBC, we get back approximately between £5 billion and £6 billion. I have no doubt that those figures reflect to some extent the fact that BBC puts back more than it takes from the licence fee payer.
	I keep using the rather amorphous term, "ecology", but I believe that the BBC is embedded in our culture. It gives the arts tremendous support, for example, through the Proms. It helps numerous other arts organisations, but one barely hears about that. A few weeks ago, because I did not think that the BBC had made enough of a point about it, I flagged up the fact that it was giving singing bursaries to young singers. People may argue that that is beyond the BBC's remit, but I want to emphasise that the BBC is involved in so much more of the public realm than simply switching on BBC 1 or BBC 2 or listening to Radio 4, Radio 5—or, indeed, Radio 1, to which I occasionally listen—suggests.
	As a public sector organisation, the BBC is surprisingly innovative. The hon. Member for Selby mentioned Freeview, freesat and the iPlayer, which are important innovations. The great thing about Freeview is that the BBC got stuck in and created a platform that is open and available to all, and ensures that there is no monopoly of platforms provided by subscription service television. That was an extremely important innovation—I am not going to say that it is as important an innovation as the invention of television, but I suspect that we will look back on it as incredibly important.
	The hon. Member for Selby mentioned the recent speech by Jana Bennett, the director of BBC Vision, which was a welcome statement by the BBC on the redoubling of its efforts to ensure that it has a presence in the regions. "Crimewatch" is moving to Cardiff—don't have nightmares—although I could not quite understand the row about "Question Time" moving to Glasgow, because as far as I am aware it is produced by an independent television company based in Hammersmith. I do not think that anyone is going to make David Dimbleby live in Glasgow, but anyway, that is beside the point.
	I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said about the need for the BBC to provide value for money. Many executives in the BBC are extremely well paid. The director general of the BBC, who went to my college at Oxford—incidentally, Merton college also produced Jeremy Isaacs and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is relevant to this debate because he is a Labour Member who wants to abolish the licence fee, which he sees as a regressive tax—forwent his bonus. However, it was a wake-up call to learn that the bonus that he forwent was equivalent to my annual salary, so he is pretty well paid.

Edward Vaizey: Absolutely not. My hon. Friend has slipped under the Deputy Speaker's radar and mentioned the issue of the future of public service broadcasting, which is not the same as the future of the licence fee. I should like to put it on record, however, that we believe in plurality in public service broadcasting. We are looking as keenly as are the Government at Ofcom's proposals to support public service broadcasting in the new media age. I would also recommend a supremely good consultation document that we published on www.shadowdcms.co.uk, called "Plurality in the new media—

Edward Vaizey: That is right. The licence fee gives the BBC the freedom to innovate, which is an extremely important point. If the BBC were to sit down and negotiate a direct grant, strings would be attached—something for which I often criticise the Government. Those strings may not necessarily be sinister, as it were—that may not be the Government's intention—but the Arts Council analogy comes into play again. Although the Arts Council is meant to be an arm's-length body, it receives a direct grant from the Government. What happens then is that the Government, perhaps perfectly laudably, say: "If you are receiving money from us, you had better ensure that you increase access and that you do this, that and the other". The Arts Council thus appears not to have the freedom to innovate and plough its own furrow.
	Although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may object to the phrase, the fact that the BBC can, as it were, "see the licence fee and licence payers' money as its own", gives it the freedom to innovate. As I suggested earlier, among public sector organisations, the BBC is, uniquely, a very innovative body. I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for helping me to make that point with greater clarity.
	In conclusion, however, freedom to innovate is not confined to the BBC. I do not believe that the BBC can ever rest on its laurelsnor should it seek to. The hon. Member for Selby mentioned BBC Sport and others have mentioned BBC News. I think that the BBC has improved its broadcasts in those spheres because of the fierce competition from Sky, which, as a private company with no subsidy from the taxpayer, has been fantastically innovative in sport, as well as through its introduction of 24-hour newsnow a loss-making element provided effectively as a public servicewhich has completely revolutionised how news is presented on television.
	As I said in my opening remarks, it is entirely appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to bring this Bill forward. It is entirely right, as he said in his opening remarks, for this debate to be conducted in the spiritnot too often seenof debating a matter of principle. To countenance the abolition of the licence fee is not the same as to countenance the abolition of the BBC. Those who support the licence fee do so with an element of humility when we say that it is the least worst option. I think that our debate has teased out some of the specific reasons why the licence fee is so important, the most central of which are the maintenance of an arm's length between the Government and the BBC, the maintenance of the BBC's independence and the means of conferring on the BBC the freedom to innovate and create.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman might be right about the poll tax. He made that comparison earlier, not me. I merely responded to his comments in an intervention. I shall come to public opinion later in my speech, if he will give me the time and the opportunity to do so. I want to go through some of the basic arguments and to consider some of the potential consequences of not having a licence fee. For example, what would have happened if we had not had a licence fee in the past? What would we have missed? I shall also look at the programme for the BBC. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) mentioned speeches by Jana Bennett, which raised some interesting points that I hope to discuss if time permits.
	The licence fee is 139.50 for colour and 47 for black and white. I must ask how many black and white licences are sold, if any. I know they exist, but perhaps someone will be inspired at some point and will be able to answer that question. A colour licence fee is the equivalent to about a pint to a pint and a half of beer a week. That is not a vast sum of money for what we get. We get two national TV stations, 10 free national radio stations, 40 free local radio stations, comprehensive online services and, of course, multi-channel services for multi-channel homes.
	We have free access to a range of nine BBC digital TV and radio stations. Indeed, the BBC was growing so fast at one time that I had difficulty catching up. People were talking about BBC 6, and I asked, Where do you find that? What is it? When I found those stations, they turned out to be very fine. The BBC's digital channels BBC 3 and BBC 4 are groundbreaking, inventive and challenging, as well as carrying repeats and other features that we welcome the opportunity to view again. As MPs, we often have surgeries on a Friday night or duties on a Saturday, and we welcome the ability to catch programmes on a Sunday when we forgot to set our digital recorder.
	No one should doubt that the BBC is good value for money. It is not just about the quantity, but about the quality. That is especially important with the move to digital. The broadcasting world is changing, however. We now have films on mobile phones, TV over the internet and so on. In principle, digital switchover means more choice. In practice, we risk the cheap and the easymore mindless, exploitive reality TV shows. Even Members of Parliament have been on them. Do we recall? We would rather notI see grimaces round the House. Such programmes crowd out the good programmes.
	Heaven help us if we were to rely on FOX News, for instance, for our information about the world, or if we moved towards narrow casting and the narrow-mindedness encouraged by placing viewers in minority interest ghettos. There would be no more of the shared experiences across the nation that we are given by the BBC and by its breadth, with the changes from programme to programme during the day. There are people who do not just get up and change channels. Some people will go from one programme to another and enjoy the experience that they accidentally come across. Some of us found at first that we would sit on the settee with the remote control, clicking from channel to channel to see what was on, much to the annoyance of our other halves. That problem was resolved in my household when the TV channel switcher was put on my wife's side of the lounge.
	There are dangers that must be resisted, because the role of the BBC is crucial. We cherish the BBC for its diversityeducational programmes, high quality drama and comedy and children's showsfree from adverts. There is a huge range of music choice on radio. The BBC website is the most trusted in the world for news and current affairs programmes that are authoritative, accurate and, above all, impartial.
	Like the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy), who is no longer in the Chamber, I must of course mention nature programmes. My interest in nature was very much inspired by some of the early BBC programmes. The Attenboroughs have both contributed to our creative industries in various ways, and I was transfixed by nature programmes such as Planet Earth, although sadly I saw little of it. We have other duties and life is full, but the episodes I saw were of exceptional quality.
	We would be foolish to put all that at risk. The opinions of about 7,000 UK residents on the cost of the licence fee were set out in a survey commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2006. The survey found that respondents were willing to pay a maximum of 138.24 for current BBC services, but that they would pay up to 162.66I do not know how that was worked out to the exact pennyfor the current service and the proposed new activities.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were to ask the shadow Chancellor that question in terms of whether people would voluntarily pay tax, the answer would be no. Some things have to be paid for and a mechanism has to be found to do it. If we believe that the BBC is a valued institution that should continue, the payment has to come from some source. At present, the licence fee is the fairest way.
	To continue my pointif the hon. Gentleman will allow mewhen people in the survey were asked what they would be willing to pay for the current services and the proposed new activities, 36.5 per cent. wanted to keep the same licence fee, 35 per cent. were willing to pay a slightly increased amount, of between 15 and 19 a month, and 11.5 per cent. were willing to pay a substantially increased licence fee. In 17 per cent. of cases, the respondents wanted the fee lowered from its then current 11 a month, so only a small numberless than a fifthwanted the licence fee lowered.
	A more recent poll, carried out for  MediaGuardian by Ipsos MORI on 18 August 2008, found that 41 per cent. of respondents agreed that the licence fee was the appropriate way of funding the BBC. I am not too sure where the battalions signing e-petitions have come from, but they are not borne out by a poll in which the majority of people were in favour of keeping the licence fee and only 37 per cent. disagreed.
	There were criticisms, however. It is fair to say that there are concerns about how the BBC manages itself, about its relocationsas we heard earlier, some of its programmes will be relocating from Bristol to Cardiffand about whether it is good value for money. The fees paid to some personalities give rise to concern from the general public. I do not say whether the BBC is right to pay those individuals such sums. Those are commercial considerations. The BBC is in a competitive market; it is competing with the ITV companies and Sky for people to front programmes. It is for the BBC to make judgments about what it is worth to secure not just the mediocre, but the best people to front its services.
	There is no reason why the BBC should not have the best, albeit not necessarily for all its programmes. In that competition, the BBC sometimes losesclearly, it has lost out on sport in the past, and it has taken action by Parliament to protect some sports events so that coverage is not subject to open bidding and they are not lost. I know that whether that protection should be extended is a matter of debate, but that is for another time.
	Criticisms were made in the survey: one third of respondents agreed that the licence fee provides value for money, but almost half47 per cent.disagreed. Just under one third agreed that the licence fee assures the provision of quality programming and services not available elsewhere, but a significantly higher proportion41 per cent.disagreed. There are questions to answer, which we might consider if this were a different debate.
	There are alternative ways of funding the BBC. The first is subscription, but that would result in a reduction in the BBC's income, so that it would be unable to do all that it does now. That includes things that benefit those who never watch the BBCthe university of broadcasting, the technology development and the drive to digital. The emphasis would be on programmes that persuade viewers to sign up, but people are not easily tempted by the unfamiliara point that we touched on earlier. The adventurous, creative initiatives would suffer the most. In addition, funding by subscription does not provide a solution for radio: we are a long way from technology to raise subscriptions for radio, which uses 18 per cent. of licence fee income.
	In an aside on the quality of the BBC's output, let me say that when I worked abroad in Iraq for seven months in 1982, my sole contact with home was the BBC World Service. I realise that its funding comes from a different body, but the World Service linked into those BBC programmes with which I was familiar. Listening to the sport, including football, on Saturday night certainly helped me to keep in contact with the UK. I found the familiarity of the BBC helpful when I was living away from home and from my fiance, now my wife, to whom I had got engaged shortly before having to work abroad.
	The second alternative is to pay for the BBC via advertising and sponsorship, but other broadcasters that rely on advertising would suffer. The TV advertising pot remains static. Broadcasters are losing funding and making changes to their newscasting and regional news in an attempt to save money. Public service broadcasters that rely on advertising would demand a reduction in their public service obligation, as ITV already has. If it were reliant on advertising and sponsorship, the BBC would go only for the most popular material that attracts advertising and sponsorship. The diversity that we cherish would be lost.
	Direct Government funding is another alternative that we might consider. Yes, it would be more progressivethe hon. Member for Christchurch has a good pointbut the licence is already free for the over-75s. The blind receive only a 50 per cent. reduction; it could be argued that that should be increased to 100 per cent., but that, too, is an argument for a general debate on BBC funding. Furthermore, those in care homes get a concessionary rate of 7.50 a year. We could go further, because there are other groups to whom we should consider giving a free service.
	Direct Government funding would reduce licence fee collection costs, although those are falling, thanks in particular to direct debit and online collection systems, but that funding method is fraught with danger. Governments of whatever hue could cut funding at a stroke if they did not like what they saw or heard. The public service broadcaster in Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has had its income cut by 25 per cent. in the past 18 years. Significantly, there is now a campaign to reintroduce the licence fee in Australia. If the UK got rid of the licence fee, in 10 years' time, hon. Members would be saying, We want to bring back the licence fee, because we used to cherish the BBC, but we have lost a lot of that feeling.
	Most importantly, direct funding by the Government would make the BBC more vulnerable to subtle threats about its journalism. The BBC only just survived the disgraceful attacks made on it by Alastair Campbell and the Government during the Gilligan affair. We now know that Gilligan's story was broadly right, yet oddly he, the chairman of governors and the director-general all resigned. In my view, and the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that was unnecessary.
	Imagine what it would have been like if the BBC had been funded directly by the Government. We would have the Fox News problem. Some 80 per cent. of Fox News viewers in the States believed one of the following: that weapons of mass destruction had been found; that there were proven links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; and that the US went to war with the support of the rest of the world. Only 23 per cent. of viewers of PBS in the States believed such nonsense. Whom would we believe if the BBC was directly funded by the Government? We would not know what to believe. I trust its coverage. I can see that it is biased at timeswe are all slightly biased in what we saybut we can take account of that, and we can hold it to account for that. We can argue with it, and I am sure that all political parties do so, from time to time.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister makes a good point. Those children had seen an actor in one guise and gone on to watch him in another. I believe that David Tennant's Hamlet is an exceptionally good one. One day, I might get to the theatre myselfsomething which, sadly, rarely happens.
	I used to listen to The Archers as a young child. In a debate yesterday, I said that as a child I wanted to be a signalman, rather than a train driver, because I wanted to direct where the trains went. From The Archers I gained an interest in agriculture, and from nature programmes, an interest in wildlife. In my teens, I went from wanting to be a farmer to wanting to be a zoologist, and that all came from the programmesprimarily BBC programmesthat I had listened to and watched. However, to refer back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), I should sadly confess that I was a Magpie fan, so I was a traitor to the cause, but competition from the other side can be good for the BBC.
	There are other popular programmes that are valuable to people, and we could have more of them. EastEnders might well survive if there was a downsizing at the BBC. People talk about exporting things from one city to another, but the BBC tried to export that programme to Spain and fell dismally on its face. With direct funding, some programmes would face a lot of pressure. I enjoy watching Top Gear, a programme whose presenters' silly and foolish antics a number of hon. Members criticise. I would not condone some of the things that those presenters have done, but overall the programme is enjoyable and brings valuable satisfaction to many people. One can go through the list: Last of the Summer Wine, All Creatures Great and Small and Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em.
	Sadly, Mark Tavener, a good friend of mine, died tragically early a year ago. He made programmes directly critical of the BBC and wrote In the Red and Absolute Power, which many of us will have enjoyed. Some of his early stuff was critical of the BBC. He had worked for the corporation at one point and was adept at poking fun at his previous employer and getting it to pay him to broadcast it. A programme that we all know and loveand a favourite of a former Prime Minister'sis Yes Minister; that valuable series probably would have survived any cuts.
	The director of BBC Vision, Jana Bennett, has been mentioned. On 15 October, she gave a speech to the Royal Television Society at the Commonwealth club, just down the road from here. I want to pull out a couple of things that she said. I shall not try to read the whole speech into the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that you would do more than raise your eyebrows at that. I shall use just two or three small quotes.
	Part of the BBC's drive at the moment is to decentralise away from London and move out. I visited the proposed site at Salford with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others to see how that work in progress is doing. If we were to change the funding system as the Bill proposes, would that diversification and programme of change be able to go ahead? Would Salford go ahead if there were uncertainty about where the funding stream would come from? There would be a real danger to that programme of change. Ms Bennett said that the BBC Trust:
	approved the Executive's recommendation for a new target for Out of London of 50 per cent. by 2016. We pledged to achieve growth in the Nations from the 2007 figure of 6 per cent. of network spend to 17 per cent. by 2016, with an interim target of 12 per cent. by 2012, and in English Regions the growth will be from 26 per cent. now to 33 per cent. in 2016. We have made it clear that the 17 per cent. target for the Nations is a floor not a ceiling.
	As one whose constituency is in the south-west, I welcome more broadcasting and programme making in our neck of the woods. I am sure that hon. Members with constituencies in Cardiff, Edinburgh and other parts of the United Kingdom feel the same about their areas.
	Ms Bennett talked about opening up creative opportunities and said:
	It is important that we understand that we are not starting out from Year Zero, however. We have been on this road for a while.
	That is true. She continued:
	The commitment is there in steel glass and concrete in the shape of BBC Scotland's fantastic new digital broadcast centre...in Glasgow and the major new centre under construction at MediaCityUK in Salford
	the site of which I visited. She added:
	Based on the Ofcom definitions, the proportion of spend outside London has increased by 4.5 percentage points over the two years to 2007, which equates to a 15 per cent. growth in spend. Last year we spent 300m outside London.
	Let me make a few final points.

Barbara Follett: This has been a long and, sometimes, very interesting debate. The Bill proposes that the television licence fee be abolished, although it does not offer, as other hon. Members have mentioned, an alternative.
	Let me outline the Government's position on the proposal of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). The Government position on the licence fee is well established. The future of that fee and the funding of the BBC were addressed fully in the recent BBC charter review, which was completed in 2006. The review concluded that, compared to the alternatives,
	the licence fee continues to be the best funding mechanism for the foreseeable future
	in other words, it is the least worst option. It is a very difficult subject and I fully understand why that phrase was used. Under the terms of the BBC's royal charter, therefore, the BBC will continue to be funded by the licence fee for the duration of the charter, which is in force until the end of 2016.
	I will explain shortly how the charter review reached that conclusion. As a first step, however, it may be helpful to set out why large sums of public money are put into broadcasting and not into other creative industries such as the music industry or publishing. There are two main reasons for that. First, broadcasting can contribute to society in ways that other media do not. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) illustrated that well. Secondly, as citizens, we would not get everything that we have come to expect from broadcasting if we relied on commercial providers alone.
	The case for public funding of the BBC and for public service broadcasting is in general based on the benefits that it can bring to society, which have had a very good airing in the Chamber. That includes Yesterday in Parliament, which several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), mentioned. That programme has a niche audience, but one that appreciates the time given to the subject.
	The BBC has been set objectives that reflect the benefits. It is defined by its goals as a public service, not only its programming output. The 2005 charter review Green Paper, entitled, A strong BBC, independent of government, states:
	Television and radio audiences are huge. Almost every programme on the major terrestrial channels will reach millions of people simultaneously. That places such broadcasters in a uniquely powerful position, and since the BBC was first established, in the 1920s, it has been commonly accepted that such power should be harnessed for society's good. Audience research shows that the public agree with this principle. They want programmes to inform and educate as well as entertain.
	Like the hon. Member for Teignbridge, I find that The Archers fulfils those three criteria wonderfully: it informs, educates and entertains. I have listened to it for more years than I care to remember.
	We recognise the positive contribution that broadcasting can make to the effective functioning of democracy. While people continue to watch television and listen to radio in such large numbers, we are determined that the public should get the service that they need and deserve, and that the BBC should retain the potential to deliver those benefits.
	The hon. Member for Wantage referred to the ability to innovate that the licence fee grants. That is an important part of its benefit to the public. Audiences would not reap the full benefit of that sort of innovation or of the information, education and entertainment that the BBC currently supplies without large-scale public funding.
	The Green Paper continues:
	As the scale and sophistication of pay-TV options increase, television viewers may benefit from an increased choice and diversity of different types of service. Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting has concluded that fully commercial providers will never provide us with high quality public service on anything like the current scale.
	Anyone who has spent time in another country such as the United States, where there are a couple of good public service channels, will realise that the permeationthe mainstreamingof the public service ethos that pertains in this country does not exist there. I would personally be sad to lose it.
	We value television's ability to interest us in new ideas and the way in which it can reflect other communities' lives. We need to spend public money on that and we need the BBC for that.
	The Green Paper goes on:
	The case for public service radio is, if anything, stronger than that for TV. Even if audiences wanted to pay for the sort of distinctive content that the BBC provides, there is as yet no price mechanism that could allow them to do so. Radio is entirely free to listen. Commercial stations do fulfil a public service role in some waysparticularly through the provision of news and local information. However, the only available commercial models rely on advertising and sponsorship and commercial stations therefore tend to cluster towards the middle ground of taste, in order to reach the widest possible audience.

Richard Younger-Ross: I listened to the BBC World Service a great deal when I worked in Iraq; it was very important to me. I was in Iraq in 1982, during the Falklands war, and I remember the then Conservative Government putting pressure on the BBC World Service because of what they perceived as its biased reporting of that conflict, although from my position, sitting in Baghdad, I thought that its reporting was very fair. There have been pressures ever since then, in Government circles, in regard to that budget. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) does not make a good point, because the budget has been at risk in the past.

Barbara Follett: It might well be able to, but if people value what the BBC provides as a service without the intrusion of advertising, I think that we should take that into account. I certainly value the fact that when I go on to BBC Online, I am not pressed to buy something that I do not need, which, sadly, is too often a characteristic of today's world.
	The Green Paper continues:
	Advertising would also create conflicting incentives for the BBCthe requirement to fulfil public purposes would have to be weighed against the need to generate revenue.
	We need to think of the effect of putting specific adverts on BBC Online or in other programmes; it would remove some of the BBC's freedom. It continues:
	The character of programming might drift towards the middle ground of taste as a result. Ofcom has pointed out that such a conflict of incentives already exists for ITV1, Channel 4 and Five, and that it will be increasingly difficult to regulate in future as commercial competition intensifies. 52 per cent. of those we surveyed said they thought the BBC would lose its independence if it relied on advertising or sponsorship.
	The long-term trends in the TV advertising market are anyway uncertain. New digital technologyparticularly Personal Video Recordersincreasingly allows audiences to skip through advertising breaks. It may be unwise to increase the dependency of public service broadcasting on advertising at a time of such uncertainty.
	There are probably fewer concerns about allowing the BBC to take sponsorship for some programmes. There would still be questions to answer, however, about a potential conflict of incentives and the commercial impact of such a move. Viewers and listeners may feel it detracted from their experience of the BBC if commercial messages were attached to their favourite programmes.
	Just think what The Archers would be like if we had to listen to advertisements for animal feed throughout the programme! It continues that,
	although our research suggests that people would prefer it to advertising... sponsorship alone would never deliver sufficient income to sustain the BBC without some additional source of funding.

Barbara Follett: The latter is extremely good and I enjoy listening to it, as I enjoy Radio 3. However, if I want to listen seriously and at length, I tend to turn to Radio 3; if I want news or weather information, I tend to turn to Classic FM. We have that choice, and I would be very sad if I lost the Radio 3 side of it and was left only with the Classic FM side. That is the point: we need to cater to both markets.
	Funding the BBC through subscription was another option considered in the charter review. On that, the Green Paper said:
	The BBC's own 'willingness to pay' research suggests that some people are willing to pay significant amounts for access to BBC services42 per cent. say 20 per month and 19 per cent. say 30 per month. If services were put together in differently priced packages, with premium programmes available at different prices depending, for example, on their newness or exclusivity, audiences would have more freedom of choice and some argue that the BBC might retain a sustainable level of funding. This sort of model would raise significant issues of principle. The chief argument against subscription as a funding method is that it would undermine the principle of universal accessBBC content would no longer be free at the point of use. It can be argued in response that the existing licence fee is in any way a form of 'compulsory subscription'. Services are only 'free' once a bulk licence fee has been paid.
	But if people choose not to subscribe then prices might have to rise for those who carried on paying, and some low-income viewers and listeners who wanted to subscribe might be priced out of the market for BBC content. If that content were not universally available, its potential benefit to society would be reduced.
	In the short term, there are also significant practical problems. In mainstream radio, no subscription facility exists, nor does one look likely to be available for some time.
	While a television subscription service could function in satellite and cable homes, for most terrestrial viewers (including most digital terrestrial or Freeview homes) there is presently no way of controlling access to individual channels. New subscription technology (code-protected cards for 'conditional access') of the sort used in satellite and cable homes would need to be included in most, if not all, digital terrestrial equipment before any subscription service could function for the BBC.
	The conclusion from the Green Paper was that the licence fee should remain. We shall see why that was described as the least worst option:
	When compared to the alternatives, we feel the licence fee continues to be the best funding mechanism available for the foreseeable future. That is a conclusion endorsed by Ofcom and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, as well as by licence fee payers. While some people show interest in the alternatives, in all strands of our research work there was more support for the licence fee than for any other mechanism. 63 per cent. of those who mentioned funding in responding to our consultation accepted the principle of the licence fee. Many respondents argued that the licence fee provided unparalleled value for money, and one of the most common arguments made in its support was that it binds all households together as equal stakeholders in the BBC.
	Audiences want the BBC to remain a universal service. They also see that the value of the licence fee is that it should keep the BBC at arm's length from Government but should bring it closer to the public who are footing the bill.
	For those reasons, it was decided that the television licence fee should remain as the main method of funding the BBC for the period of the BBC's current charter.
	In supporting the case for the television licence to continue, it is worthparticularly in the context of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurchrevisiting some of the research on which the conclusions of the charter review were based. The Government relied on evidence from various sources, including independent research commissioned by my Department. We commissioned Cragg Ross Dawson to undertake qualitative research, which it completed in April 2004. Its report noted:
	The main perceived advantage of the licence fee system was that it allowed the BBC to operate in the absence of commercial pressures. Only those with the most negative opinions of the licence fee did not appreciate this benefit at some level.
	Most recognised it at a superficial level as the lack of advertising. They saw this as a 'cosmetic' advantage that the BBC had over commercial broadcasters, without considering more fundamental effects it might have on programming. Most did not like having their programmes interrupted by advertising (or indeed their films interrupted by the news).
	The report continued:
	In this context, many complained about the amount of advertising on other UK channels and stations, and some mentioned US television, where there was said to be
	my own experience suggests that this is nearly true
	almost as much advertising as programming.
	When asked which aspect (if any) of the BBC made it a better broadcaster than its competitors, respondents often answered 'the lack of advertising'. This fact alone seemed to be enough to justify the licence fee to many.
	Only a minority considered the effects of freedom from commercial pressures more fully than this. They tended to be most appreciative of the BBC's output, and the most in favour of the licence fee as a method of funding.
	There was a belief that the absence of commercial pressures helped the BBC to stay 'independent', although understanding of this varied, with some feeling that the influence of government outweighed the potential influence of business.
	The report went on to say:
	A number also felt that it helped to keep the quality of programmes high and the range of programming wide. Again, there was uncertainty about why this might be the casesome were making a comparison with what they saw as the inferior quality of commercial broadcasters.
	Other advantages of the licence fee system were mentioned by those who thought carefully about the issue. Public-service broadcasting commitments (such as niche and minority interest programming)
	Yesterday in Parliament, perhaps
	were imagined to be easier to meet under a system which provided an overall income rather than funding linked to the success of individual programmes.
	On the income aspect, the report said:
	Some also felt that a degree of external control over income was good for the quality of the BBC's output. They believed that the corporation received its income on condition that all profits were ploughed into programming, unlike commercial broadcasters who were expected to turn in a profit for their shareholders.
	Another important piece of evidence commissioned by DCMS was a report on deliberative research undertaken by the Corr Willbourn research and development agency and published in 2004. That report found that
	ultimately, the vast majorityregardless of their degree of consumptioncould see no better way to fund the BBC. The majority of participants recognised that if the BBC were to be funded by other means, given the long history of its non-commercial status, it would almost certainly lose its essential character. Overall, supporters of an advertising-free BBC outnumbered those who resent paying the licence fee.
	To sum up, by the end of the deliberation the great majority felt that the licence fee, although far from perfect, was to date the best, or more accurately the 'least worst', way to fund the BBC.
	Further research, which was compiled from about 5,000 pieces of correspondence from the general public, mostly responses to an eight-question consultation issued by the DCMS, found that the majority felt that the BBC was the
	greatest bargain in the world.
	The report stated:
	Generally, respondents compared the cost of the BBC services very favourably with the comparable costs of a subscription to Sky; very rarely, respondents made the contrary assertion that the Sky packages represented better value. One respondent made the observation that 'when the cost per head in the average UK household is approximately 8p a day, for 10 television channels, 50 radio stations and a top-notch website, you have to wonder where the argument against the licence fee can be made.

Siobhain McDonagh: It is not often that I ask for an Adjournment debate, but a few weeks ago I met someone at my weekly advice surgery and something about her story really got to me. I almost could not believe that a big business, and especially a big power supplier, could treat her as it had and not realise that anything was wrong.
	My constituent, Michelle, told me that she and her six-year-old son, Jayden, had been left without hot water, cooking and heating for four and a half months. She told me that she had fallen behind on her gas and had been cut off. At no time did she disguise the fact that she had arrears. She said that she had spoken to her supplier on numerous occasions to try to get on a lower tariff and make affordable monthly payments, or even go on a prepayment meterall to no avail. She said that she had told her supplier that she had a six-year-old son, but that the person she spoke to had said that that would not make any difference, as they could help only if he was under four. She told me that ever since she had been cut off, she had faced problem after problem and felt as though she was being held to ransom over impossible demands.
	Michelle's gas supplier is Scottish Power. The more I have dealt with that company in this case, the more I can believe what she has told me. Like other hon. Members, I take up dozens and dozens of new cases each week, writing and speaking to companies and public bodies alike. I do not always agree with the outcome, but I usually feel that I am dealing with reasonable people. Scottish Power might be a perfectly nice company, but something about my dealings with it has not felt quite straight. If I were to apply for an Adjournment debate every time I thought that a constituent had got less than they deserved, I would be here every week. But I want to single out Scottish Power for special attention. The information it has given me has been inconsistent and contradictory, and at root I just do not think that it is bothered about my constituent. Nor does it think that I can do anything to affect it.
	I have initiated this debate because I am worried that Scottish Power might be treating other people unreasonably. I want Michelle and Jayden to be able to cook again, and to be warm this winter. I just do not think that Scottish Power is all that fussed. I do not pretend for a moment that Michelle has been one of the company's best customers. She certainly fell behind with her payments, and it has been a vicious circle for her for three years. But the price has been going up, and she is on benefits. It has not been easy, and she has got into a mess. Her history with Scottish Power has been far from straightforward.
	Scottish Power took over her supply in March 2005, when she was obviously a customer it thought worth attracting. It said that she could pay a direct debit of 35 a month, but within six months it said that she had to increase her direct debit by 30 per cent. to 45. It is not possible to tell whether it lured her in with a low introductory rate and then decided to start taking more and more, but a 30 per cent. increase in the first six months seems rather high. We should remember that this was before the huge price rises of the last year or two. Nor was it necessary. Michelle's bill said that in that first six months she had actually overpaid, by 81.38, but still Scottish Power pressed ahead and increased her direct debit. This was the point at which Michelle started to fall behind.
	Michelle called Scottish Power to say that she could not afford 45 a month, and asked to stop her direct debit. Scottish Power did not get any further information at this point, or find out if she had children or was on benefits. They just let her be, no doubt happy to add the monthly penalty to the bill of customers who cannot pay by direct debit these days. It did nothing for another five months until, in February 2006, it sent out a reminder, took Michelle off any discounts she might have once had, and gave her case to the collections team.
	When I first raised this case with Scottish Power, it insisted that it had been unable to talk to Michelle, and that it did not know anything about her circumstances. But I received a new account on Wednesday, and it admitted that since Michelle first got into difficulties when the company increased her direct debit, she had rung it on many occasions. On at least three occasions, she offered to set up a direct debit that she could afford, every time for more than the 35 a month she was originally told would be enough. Scottish Power said no. By now, the tariff that she was being charged for her gas and electricity became less and less generous, and so a vicious cycle developed. From the moment Scottish Power increased her direct debit beyond her ability to paywhile Michelle was still in credit, rememberthe die was cast. The gap between the amount she could afford and the amount she was charged widened until, almost inevitably, Scottish Power cut her off.
	Let us look at the tariffs again in more detail. Michelle's original tariff was 35 a month. Scottish Power put that up to 45 a month, from which point things got worse: because she could not pay that amount, her charges increased month after month. According to the latest documentation, which Scottish Power sent me on Wednesday, between April and July 2006 Michelle's bill for her gas and electricity averaged 50 a month. From July to October 2006, it went up to nearly 70 a month. In the next three months, it went up to 110 a month. Her next meter reading was amended, and the bill went up to 320 in just one month. In the next two months, she was charged an astonishing 150 a month, and so it went on.
	How is such a thing possible? Michelle and Jayden live in a small, two-bedroom housing association flat. Last week, Scottish Power told me that she was being charged an average of 75 a month and I thought, Wow, that's a lot for a small home like hers. I thought she must be on a really horrible tariff, but the new information from Scottish Power shows that her bill went up to more than 100 a month.
	If I do nothing else today, I want to complain about how those who can least afford to pay a bill always seem to be on the least generous tariff. Why are those who are most likely to get in trouble always charged the most? As I said in the topical debate yesterday, the Government must do even more to stop the disproportionate charges levied on people with low incomes. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is committed to doing more for people who use prepayment meters. Most people on prepayment meters are the least well-off. It is well known that people who pay by prepayment meters are penalised heavily.
	According to Ofgem, people with prepayment meters pay 125 more than people who pay by direct debit, but, ironically for people such as Michelle and Jayden, they can be a useful solution. For people in such a bad position, a monthly payment coming out of their bank account is too much of a worry, and pay-as-you-go can be a helpful arrangement. Michelle has been asking Scottish Power to install a meter, so that she does not lose her heating, cooking and hot water again, but Scottish Power has refused. The company says that it is an infrastructure issue and that a meter can be installed only by the infrastructure provider, Southern Gas Networks, and the meter provider, National Grid Metering.
	Apparently, Michelle and Jayden must have extra pipework installed in order to have a prepayment meter and it will cost 350 plus the cost of a CORGI engineer, who is also needed for the job to be done. However, it is not the big utility company that will have to pay all that money. Michelle and Jayden have to pick up the bill. How can that possibly be? How can they be expected to pay hundreds of pounds when they cannot afford even a single month's charge? The utility companies are not only charging our least affluent constituents the highest tariffs, but trying to get them to pay hundreds of pounds for the privilege of having a prepayment meter that most hon. Members would consider a rip-off if we had to have one.
	I asked whether Scottish Power has a charitable arm, or a social responsibility fund, but it replied, Not for things like this. So, Michelle cannot even have a prepayment meter. What is worse is that she cannot have her standard meter back either, because Scottish Power will not let her have it unless she agrees to pay a direct debit of 136 a month101 more than the amount she was originally paying. That is an increase of nearly 300 per cent. in three years. It is just staggering to see such a price rise for someone on benefits, with a young son.
	I am not sure how Scottish Power expects my constituents to get back on the level. They are in a Catch-22 situation. They cannot afford the bill so they cannot have a standard meter, and they cannot afford the charges to install a prepayment meter. As the public affairs man from Scottish Power says, without any sense of how satirical he is being:
	Any payment plan lower than this would not be realistic as this would only result in the debt increasing, which we cannot allow to continue.
	The company seems to have made up its mind. There is no compassion and no sense of responsibility for the position of my constituent.
	The company says that it could not do anything because it did not know that Michelle was on benefits and it did not know that she had a child. I am not sure that I believe that; as I said, Michelle told me that she had spoken to an adviser and they had said they could help only if her son was four. Nor am I sure how hard Scottish Power tried to find out whether Michelle was on benefits or whether she had a child. The company said that it had not been able to get through to her, but every time I ring her she picks up straight away, even though her mobile says Number withheld.
	Michelle has always been very open with me about her situation, so I do not understand how Scottish Power could not have known her circumstances. From my experience of the company, I can easily believe that it would not have bothered, or had the common sense, to ask herperhaps because it could charge her more if it did not know. Whatever the reason, the Government should insist that utility companies find out whether anyone in arrears has children or is on benefits. When companies find that outas in this casethe Government should ensure that they change their approach.
	Scottish Power would rather have Michelle and Jayden pay hundreds of pounds they clearly do not have and carry on without cooking, heating or hot water. The best the company can offer is to say that as Michelle is on benefits she might be eligible for Fuel Direct, whereby the Department for Work and Pensions deducts payments directly from benefits to pay off arrears. However, as Scottish Power has repeatedly stressed, that would result only in her accruing further debt. Things can only get worse.
	As I said in the topical debate yesterday, it is not fair. Keeping a family without hot water, heating or cooked food for four and a half months and trying to charge them 500 for a new meter when they cannot even afford 45 is not right. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to this story and come to the same conclusion. The utility companies are very well off and cases such as this are very rare, but there is a degree of responsibility. Utility companies spend an enormous amount on public affairs. Scottish Power is part of a group that made profits of 200 million last year. It talks a lot about corporate social responsibility, and for all I know its record may be better than most, but corporate responsibility is about more than fuzzy words and glossy leaflets sent to people such as us and other key stakeholders; it is about people such as Michelle and six-year-old Jayden.
	It is time that the utility companies learned real social responsibility. I hope this debate helps them to move in that direction.